The Law of Divergence
Law of Divergence
Where is the human evolution between Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola? Darwin did better. And Jules Verne also.
Darwin's law of natural selection published some 150 years ago proposed a surprising and evidently fundamental discovery and explanation of the Origin of species and their evolution. But this law for sure cannot explain that the human species, which is the most recent of mammals according to experts, has succeeded to mute so quickly and to outrun all other live species thanks to the development of its brain up to the point which we observe today.
Darwin's law and explanation encounter evident limits. As a matter of fact, we observe dramatic ruptures in the history of our human physiology and behaviour. We have to admit the evidence of biological mutations, which occurred in the evolution of the human species, many times more than in any other animal species. We have to acknowledge the evidence of a process of acceleration based on decisive mutations, such as vertical walking or the development of our brain foremost physical strength, wings or sensorial perceptions. And this process of evolution seems to have accelerated. These mutations multiply exponentially since a century, in relation with our demographic shock, and the increase of our instrumental power thanks to technoscience. There is no doubt that nowadays the digital age means an anthropological revolution or mutation.
Only the Law of divergence, which we propose to consider, may reflect such radical mutations. The human being is not limited to adaptation. He thinks and develops projects, considers dangerous utopias, which may even put him and the whole planet at risk. He tries to escape any determination. We just have to evocate the history of science, technology, religions and even politics to be obliged to admit the evidence of the Law of divergence. He is crating himself by rejecting admitted evidences, he diverges, he projects and he proclaims that an other world is possible. Art history is a history of divergence proclaimed by audacious creators confronted to the risk of failure, social reprobation and even madness. Only the Law of divergence may tell us of the history of science, founded on a succession of dialectic negations of its established truths, which have allowed it to progress. The human being is able to invent ideas, to conceive hypothesis, to mute. This Law could be formulated as such :
Law of Divergence:
Changing is not created by the point of view of passive majorities, but on the contrary, by the alternative projects of minorities or atypical active individuals.
In the same way, the collective memory does not preserve foremost widespread productions, but on the contrary the very rare.
Finally the exception always tends to prevail and impose its new law.
How do we explain that the exception usually is more determinant that the majority? We have first to admit that it does not happen so often, but it is the only and very factor of change.